IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0004644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Neuraxial Blockade May Be Difficult To Study Using Large Randomized Controlled Trials: The PeriOperative Epidural Trial (POET) Pilot Study

Author

Listed:
  • Peter T Choi
  • W Scott Beattie
  • Gregory L Bryson
  • James E Paul
  • Homer Yang

Abstract

Background: Early randomized controlled trials have suggested that neuraxial blockade may reduce cardiorespiratory complications after non-cardiothoracic surgery, but recent larger trials have been inconclusive. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of conducting a large multicentre randomized controlled trial in Canada. Methodology/Principal Findings: After Research Ethics Board approvals from the participating institutions, subjects were recruited if they were ≥45 years old, had an expected hospital stay ≥48 hours, were undergoing a noncardiothoracic procedure amenable to epidural analgesia, met one of six risk criteria, and did not have contraindications to neuraxial blockade. After informed consent, subjects were randomly allocated to combined epidural analgesia (epidural group) and neuraxial anesthesia, with or without general anesthesia, or intravenous opioid analgesia (IV group) and general anesthesia. The primary outcomes were the rate of recruitment and the percents of eligible patients recruited, crossed over, and followed completely. Feasibility targets were defined a priori. A blinded, independent committee adjudicated the secondary clinical outcomes. Subjects were followed daily while in hospital and then at 30 days after surgery. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Over a 15-month period, the recruitment rate was 0.5±0.3 (mean±SEM) subjects per week per centre; 112/494 (22.7%) eligible subjects were recruited at four tertiary-care teaching hospitals in Canada. Thirteen (26.5%) of 49 subjects in the epidural group crossed over to the IV group; seven (14.3%) were due to failed or inadequate analgesia or complications from epidural analgesia. Five (9.8%) of 51 subjects in the IV group crossed over to the epidural group but none were due to inadequate analgesia or complications. Ninety-eight (97.0%) of 101 subjects were successfully followed up until 30 days after their surgery. Conclusion/Significance: Of the criteria we defined for the feasibility of a full-scale trial, only the follow-up target was met. The other feasibility outcomes did not meet our preset criteria for success. The results suggest that a large multicentre trial may not be a feasible design to study the perioperative effects of neuraxial blockade. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 0221260

Suggested Citation

  • Peter T Choi & W Scott Beattie & Gregory L Bryson & James E Paul & Homer Yang, 2009. "Effects of Neuraxial Blockade May Be Difficult To Study Using Large Randomized Controlled Trials: The PeriOperative Epidural Trial (POET) Pilot Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(2), pages 1-12, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0004644
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004644
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004644&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0004644?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0004644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.